Privacy vs. Free Speech

[theprestige]

I covered that in the 1st post you responded to ..

HIPAA mandates by law your right to have your health-care providers and their partners safeguard your privacy.

It is explicitly an example of what you asked for: "types of laws [that] would protect [the disclosure of information about other people]."

I'm not sure what else you want. Are you trying to ask if there's any right to privacy from other citizens compiling publically-available information about you and publishing it more widely?

 

[ponderingturtle]

How is this an issue of privacy vs. free speech? Nobody has had either their right to free speech nor their right to privacy violated by a government agency. Isn't that what free speech is in the US?

They can have their rights to privacy violated by private citizens as well, but that didn't happen either.

 

[uke2se]

They can have their rights to privacy violated by private citizens as well, but that didn't happen either.

But is that really a violation of the right to privacy, or does it fall under some other clause?

I ask because I figured first amendment rights limited what the government could and could not do.

 

[ponderingturtle]

But is that really a violation of the right to privacy, or does it fall under some other clause?

I ask because I figured first amendment rights limited what the government could and could not do.

It is treated as a violation of a law and not a constitutional violation. But people talk about civil rights laws as being rights even when they are not constitutional rights.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

What he was doing was behaving in a wildly unpopular manner that--if he'd being doing it in public--would have gotten him shunned and ostracized by pretty much everybody he met.

He didn't do anything illegal, but he behaved in an unpopular manner.

If he was in a very conservative part of the country and was found to be gay would that justify his termination? Or what if he was a closeted atheist in a very religious part of the country?

And I'm not saying I find homosexuality or atheism repugnant, and I'm not saying that I'm okay with the voyeur cams or the jailbait threads he started (though I haven't seen either).

But if 'wild unpopularity' that would have gotten him 'shunned...by everybody he met' is the benchmark, then why wouldn't homosexuality be grounds for termination (if discovered) in a place where people didn't like homosexuals?

Maybe there's a utilitarian argument that could apply here?

 

[Dancing David]

I'm unfamiliar with Violentacruz... was he doing his trolling on work time? I can understand getting fired for failing to follow an employer's code of conduct, but not for activity outside of work.

Well a lot of it depends on state law and if you have a contract or not. In Illinois unless you can show that you are a suspect class and a hostile work environment you can be basically be fired for any reason and your only recourse is to get unemployment. Contracts can mitigate that, And most employers have loose enough job descriptions to allow the employer to generate and document a reason to fire you.

Even stronger are company policies and procedures that you actively sign receipt of. Employers can restrict your 'moonlighting' if they wish, they can require that you report any criminal or legal charges brought against you, etc...

Now Illinois is a 'right to work state' and most employees are 'at will', meaning that you can pretty much be fired for about any reason at any time, getting a hearing before the Illinois Labor Relations Board is long and drawn out, and court cases just as much.

 

[Dancing David]

Excellent questions! I don't really have a good answer for the first one. I suppose that unless all involved parties agree to non-disclosure, the information from any event will be near impossible to control. This is probably why I don't trust anyone.

Your second question brings up another issue as well: fraud. What if the information is an unfounded (and incorrect) assertion? Do people have the right to spread false information, whether they know it to be or not?

Well, gotta run. I'll have to think about this more and return later.

That would be subject to libel law and possible federal intervention, depending.

However that may be after the fact of your termination.

 

[ponderingturtle]

He didn't do anything illegal, but he behaved in an unpopular manner.

If he was in a very conservative part of the country and was found to be gay would that justify his termination?

In much of the country he could be. I am in favor of laws against that though.

Or what if he was a closeted atheist in a very religious part of the country?

Already illegal on a federal level, covered under religion as a protected class. I am against making asshat a protected class.

And I'm not saying I find homosexuality or atheism repugnant, and I'm not saying that I'm okay with the voyeur cams or the jailbait threads he started (though I haven't seen either).

Yea isn't refusing to hire criminals or racists exactly the same as refusing to hire blacks, atheists or jews?

But if 'wild unpopularity' that would have gotten him 'shunned...by everybody he met' is the benchmark, then why wouldn't homosexuality be grounds for termination (if discovered) in a place where people didn't like homosexuals?

Maybe there's a utilitarian argument that could apply here?

Yes there are forms of discrimination people agree with and forms they do not. Things we think need special protected become incorporated in law as protected classes like sex, race or religion. Other things like preferences in sports teams or being an asshat are not.

Now I think firing someone for there sports team preference is an asshat thing to do, but it is legal. So is firing someone for being an asshat.

 

[marksman]

What is this " right to privacy " that the OP brought up ?

Unless one is party to some confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement, is there actually any legal " right to privacy " ?

The right to privacy deals with the government's ability to invade your personal life. Many Constitutional rights fall under the penumbra of the "right to privacy", including the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right against compelled testimony, and the right against taking your liberty or property without due process.

Private citizens' ability to invade your privacy is limited by laws against trespass, which is unrelated to the Constitutional strictures against the government.

Also, people are confusing the right of speech with the act of speaking. Free speech deals with the content of your speech not your physical ability to speak (unless the regulation in question would prevent you from speaking at all). Preventing you from calling someone on the phone every 15 minutes does not implicate free speech because it is not based on the content of your speech. You are barred from repeatedly communicating with someone against their will whether you're calling to call them names, or if you're just really genuinely interested in how they are feeling.

 

[marksman]

If he was in a very conservative part of the country and was found to be gay would that justify his termination? Or what if he was a closeted atheist in a very religious part of the country?

Outing someone is not illegal unless the person did it in a way to result in the person being physically beaten up.

"He's an atheist. Fire him!" is different from "He's an atheist. Get him!"

If this is disturbing (and it should be), we need laws to prevent discrimination for being an atheist or for being gay. We don't need laws to prevent people from saying "He's gay" or "he's an atheist".

But if 'wild unpopularity' that would have gotten him 'shunned...by everybody he met' is the benchmark, then why wouldn't homosexuality be grounds for termination (if discovered) in a place where people didn't like homosexuals?

It is a ground, barring anti-discrimination laws.

Look, as much as we hate it, people are allowed to refuse to associate with people who are gay. People are allowed to say "I don't want to be friends with you because you are gay" just as people can say "I don't want to be friends with you because you moderated a creepy internet forum that posted sexy but legal pictures of underage girls."

Now, we could have a law that says an employer can only fire someone for reasons relate to their job performance or for financial reasons (i.e., lay-offs). That would protect the gay man and the creepy internet moderator. But we don't. We don't because we understand that such a law will place insurmountable costs on businesses who will have to incur legal costs every time they let someone go. So we do it piecemeal by protecting only those classes of employees from discrimination that society deems appropriate to be protected. For now, that's race, religion, gender, and disability.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The right to privacy deals with the government's ability to invade your personal life. Many Constitutional rights fall under the penumbra of the "right to privacy", including the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right against compelled testimony, and the right against taking your liberty or property without due process.

Private citizens' ability to invade your privacy is limited by laws against trespass, which is unrelated to the Constitutional strictures against the government.

Not strictly. HIPPA laws and laws against things like setting up cameras in the bathroom of a business I own.

 

[marksman]

HIPPA laws and privacy laws are premised on a trespass theory, which I described in the second paragraph you quoted. HIPPA laws have no Constitutional implications.

 

[ponderingturtle]

HIPPA laws and privacy laws are premised on a trespass theory, which I described in the second paragraph you quoted. HIPPA laws have no Constitutional implications.

But trespass at least in common usage would not include things like setting up cameras in your own property. Like a hotel room or apartment.

 

[theprestige]

He didn't do anything illegal, but he behaved in an unpopular manner.

If he was in a very conservative part of the country and was found to be gay would that justify his termination? Or what if he was a closeted atheist in a very religious part of the country?

And I'm not saying I find homosexuality or atheism repugnant, and I'm not saying that I'm okay with the voyeur cams or the jailbait threads he started (though I haven't seen either).

But if 'wild unpopularity' that would have gotten him 'shunned...by everybody he met' is the benchmark, then why wouldn't homosexuality be grounds for termination (if discovered) in a place where people didn't like homosexuals?

Maybe there's a utilitarian argument that could apply here?

ponderingturtle said pretty much everything I would have said.

I'd like to emphasize one point, though:

Yes there are forms of discrimination people agree with and forms they do not. Things we think need special protected become incorporated in law as protected classes like sex, race or religion. Other things like preferences in sports teams or being an asshat are not.

This is the same point I've been emphasizing in the other thread: It's not about the what, it's about the why. You don't improve society by passing laws against shunning asshats; you improve society by winning hearts and minds to your better definition of asshat.

I utterly and categorically reject the slippery slope fallacy that if we condone shunning of crypto-pedophiles, we condone shunning of homosexuals or theists.

 

[Merton]

As far as American law is concerned, in a nutshell, your speech is limited only as follows:

1. In public space, you may be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, as long as they are not based on the content of your speech.

First off, thanks for the great synopsis of US law with respect to free speech! I have a question though: the first amendment also guarantees "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"... don't the restrictions you've mentioned in #1 conflict with this right?

 

[Merton]

My attitude is do not put anything on the Internet which your employer or potential employer would strongly disapprove. You cannot expect much privacy in public places like the Internet.

Over the years, I have developed three maxims about the Internet:

1. The Internet changes everything.

2. The Internet means your business on other people's computers.

3. What happens on the Internet, happens in Real Life.

Oh, absolutely! Part of my job is GNU/Linux system administration and I tend to go a little overboard with security. Of course, I don't really trust anyone in face-to-face conversations either.

 

[theprestige]

First off, thanks for the great synopsis of US law with respect to free speech! I have a question though: the first amendment also guarantees "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"... don't the restrictions you've mentioned in #1 conflict with this right?

Well, they restrain the right, sure. There must be some way of resolving conflicts between citizens who want to use the same public space at the same time.

But citizens also have the right to assemble in private spaces. The Constitution prohibits the government from interfering with you if you rent a meeting hall, invite a few hundred or dozen or thousand of your friends, and assemble there for pretty much any reason.

Political rallies, rock concerts, bar mitzvas...

 

[Merton]

Well, they restrain the right, sure. There must be some way of resolving conflicts between citizens who want to use the same public space at the same time.

Those sound like reasonable (and reasonably mild) restrictions... thanks!

 

[marksman]

But trespass at least in common usage would not include things like setting up cameras in your own property. Like a hotel room or apartment.

I was using the term as the justification for preventing people from infringing on others. Trespass is a theory not merely a tort (or crime). The same legal theory that allows the government to stop you from entering someone's home without permission also allows them to stop you from disclosing personal information without permission, particularly information that is regulated, such as medical information, or social security numbers.

 

[marksman]

First off, thanks for the great synopsis of US law with respect to free speech! I have a question though: the first amendment also guarantees "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"... don't the restrictions you've mentioned in #1 conflict with this right?

Well, that's an entirely different issue. But yes, "time, place, and manner" restrictions are often challenged as violative of the Right to Peaceably Assemble. There's an entire other branch of jurisprudence that determines to what extent the government can put barriers on peaceable assembly. Often, it revolves on the definition of "peaceable".

For example, a military base is public land (in that it is owned by the public). You and six of your friends cannot, however, hold a Greenpeace meeting there because it would interfere on the intended and lawful use of that land as a military base (and is thus considered not peaceable) and the government is perfectly empowered to stop you. However, the government could not stop you from holding that same meeting in New York's Central Park, as long as you and yoru friends don't get too rowdy (and thus disturb the "peace").